Britain intends to follow France, and now Canada, in recognising a Palestinian state in September. I’ve already set out the practical and theoretical problems inherent in such a policy, not least the absence of a functioning Palestinian state to recognise. But we shouldn’t lose sight of another effect of this policy: in recognising a state which claims territory also claimed by Israel, Britain, France and Canada harm Israel’s sovereign interests in territories where Jewish self-government can be traced back three millennia. This is one of the most inflammatory acts possible in statecraft, one which Whitehall has noticeably refrained from in other conflicts.
The British governing class is behaving as though it’s the 1930s and Palestine is still being run by a good chap from the Foreign Office who reckons he could keep the peace with the Arabs if only those blasted Jews stopped causing trouble
Israel’s angry reaction to Keir Starmer’s announcement reflects the grievousness of this diplomatic punch in the face as well as the justified impression that Britain is rewarding the Palestinian leadership responsible for October 7. As I put it when David Cameron proposed recognition in the final months of Rishi Sunak’s government, the message sent would be: ‘Start a pogrom, get a state.’ This is an obscene way to treat Israel, a friendly nation, but it also offends against the UK’s national security interests. If terrorism has brought the Palestinians their biggest strategic victory in years — and it very much has — there is a lesson in that for terrorists in other theatres. Anyone who thinks there aren’t homegrown jihadists in Britain now considering the logistics of domestic hostage-taking is dangerously naive. If Hamas got a state from Starmer, what could they get?
There is anger in Jerusalem, and there should be, but anger is an empty force, futile unless it is channelled into something of substance. The British governing class is behaving as though it’s the 1930s and Palestine is still being run by a good chap from the Foreign Office who reckons he could keep the peace with the Arabs if only those blasted Jews stopped causing trouble. It is in Israel’s national interest, and its duty to the principle of hadar (dignity), to make it emphatically clear to Whitehall that it no longer calls the shots between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. The Israelis should tell Downing Street in no uncertain terms: this is our land.
One of the strategic blunders that got Israel where it is today is the decision to make its case solely in security terms. Among earlier generations of Western leaders this was a winning argument but it has become an albatross for Israel in a new world order in which claims of victimhood and who is indigenous trump all other considerations. The Palestinian argument is that the land belongs to them. Instead of challenging that, the Israelis have for too long responded with a hand-wringing plea for security. This is the language of a burglar caught by the homeowner and begging for mercy. If you don’t want to be insecure, don’t steal other people’s land.
Which is why the core of Israel’s case should be its legal claims to what is today called ‘the West Bank’ but was, prior to the mid-20th century, known as Judea and Samaria, the historical, cultural, linguistic and biblical cradle of Jewish civilisation. Security and other considerations should be secondary to the assertion of Israel’s national rights in its historic homeland. The background to all this is too protracted to go into here but anyone interested in Israel’s legal rights to the ‘occupied’ territories should consult the writing of international law professors Avi Bell, Eugene Kontorovich, and David M Phillips.
So how does Israel make its case? By making new facts on the ground. The British are not the only ones who can act unilaterally. They have decided, with the encouragement of the Europeans and the Palestinians, to tell Israel where its rightful borders lie. It is within Israel’s power and compelled by its interests to show Britain otherwise.
Benjamin Netanyahu should table a Bill in the Knesset applying the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel to the settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley. The settlement blocs are Modiin Illit, Beitar Illit, Ariel, Maale Adumim, Gush Etzion and Givat Ze’ev, the six conurbations which are home to roughly 70 per cent of Israelis living in the West Bank. The Jordan Valley (Bik’at HaYarden) is a natural barrier between Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan and Jerusalem’s sovereignty over the Israeli side of the valley is essential. Not only because it was part of the Palestine Mandate but — and here is where security comes in — it is also vital to regional stability. Given its strategically valuable topography, a terrorist entity which seized control of Bik’at HaYarden would pose a grave threat to both Israel and Jordan.
To keep the Trump administration on board, or at least minimise the blowback, Israel should remain faithful to the president’s own ‘Deal of the Century’ blueprint from 2020. That proposal, more substantive than it was given credit for, would have handed the Palestinians a viable state via land swaps. Naturally, the Palestinians did not engage with it beyond a few pro forma statements. Netanyahu should adopt the Trump plan’s precept that, except where it is unavoidable, neither Arabs nor Jews should be evicted from their homes. To that end, any Arabs living in the areas Israel incorporates should be automatically granted Israeli citizenship, with the decision of whether to retain it left up to them.
Applying its jurisdiction to these areas would reflect Israel’s legal claims to the territory, enhance security on the ground, hinder Palestinian factions’ ambitions to take over the West Bank, and send an unmistakable message to countries like Britain: you may not believe in enforcing your borders, but we believe in enforcing ours. The move would make a Palestinian state more difficult to achieve, though no more so than the past 25 years of Palestinian decisions. It would not, however, render such an entity impossible. The vast majority of the West Bank would remain untouched, continuing to be home to self-governing Palestinian areas, large swathes of vacant territory, and outlying Israeli settlements, which would stay under the military jurisdiction of the IDF.
Israel does not, and should not, want to rule over millions of hostile foreigners, which is why it should only apply its jurisdiction where it is also prepared to grant citizenship. Jerusalem should maintain security control over the remainder of the West Bank and should focus future settlement building close to the current blocs. Should the Palestinians decide, at some point in the future, to come to the negotiating table and agree to a state of their own, Israel will enter those talks in a stronger position than today. Any suggestion of a retreat to the 1949 armistice lines will be out of the question, and negotiations would instead be about security buffer zones, Palestinian territorial contiguity, and the fate of the remaining settlements, as well as arrangements for access to holy sites. If the Palestinians go on rejecting bilateral talks and a negotiated settlement, that is their choice. It’s a national tragedy but it’s a self-inflicted one. Israel should remain open to the possibility of a state or state-like entity for the Palestinians but it can’t force one on them.
To the British political establishment, desperately trying to prop up the crumbling state ideologies of mass immigration, non-integration and multiculturalism, Israel is an ideal punching bag. Thump the Jews enough and perhaps the more unruly additions to your citizenry will simmer down and allow you to govern a little longer. Israel should refuse to be used as a prop by a precarious governing class prepared to trash its foreign relations to manage its domestic dilemmas. Keir Starmer has attacked Israel’s sovereign rights. Israel should assert them in response.
Comments