Israel and the Changing West

The letter sent by more than one hundred former British and French diplomats on Palestine deserves close attention, not only for what it says, but perhaps even more importantly for who is saying it. These are not activists from pro-Palestinian solidarity movements, nor figures traditionally associated with the European left. They are former politicians, ambassadors and diplomats who spent many years within the foreign policy establishment, some of whom served in the region and were closely acquainted with its issues, calculations and complexities.

Published by the Britain Palestine Project—and kindly sent to me by veteran British diplomat Sir Vincent Fean, one of the leading figures behind the project—the letter bears the signatures of 52 former French diplomats and 50 former British ambassadors and diplomats. Among them are prominent figures who held senior positions at the United Nations, foreign ministries and embassies of both countries.

That makes the language they use particularly striking. They speak of “ethnic cleansing” in the West Bank and of “Palestine being erased before our eyes,” and even question whether Israel can still be regarded as a “true democracy.”

What gives the letter even greater weight is that it does not stop at condemnation or expressions of concern—the language to which we have long become accustomed in European statements. Instead, it poses a practical question: if Israel is violating international law and systematically eliminating the possibility of a Palestinian state, what are Britain and France prepared to do about it?

The signatories provide a clear and politically consequential answer: suspend trade and partnership agreements with Israel; halt arms transfers and bilateral military cooperation; prohibit trade, investment and financial services connected to settlements; ensure humanitarian access to Gaza; and even criminalise the purchase by British and French citizens of property on illegally seized Palestinian land.

These proposed measures may well be the most important part of the letter. For decades, Western policy towards the Palestinian question has rested on a peculiar equation: continuous affirmation of the two-state solution and opposition to settlements, coupled with the absence of any real price for Israel when it systematically undermines that very solution on the ground. Statements of condemnation are repeated, settlements continue to expand, while trade, military and political relations proceed almost as usual.

Consider, for example, the E1 settlement project east of Jerusalem. Britain, France and other European countries have repeatedly warned against it because it would disrupt Palestinian territorial contiguity and make the prospect of a viable Palestinian state even more difficult. But what happens if Israel proceeds regardless? This is precisely the question the letter puts on the table: if crossing “red lines” carries no political consequences, what meaning do those red lines actually have?

The letter is also important because it does not emerge in a vacuum. A visible transformation has been taking place within Western societies since the Gaza war. It began in universities, on the streets and within solidarity movements, became increasingly evident in opinion polls—particularly among younger generations—and then began to leave its mark on elections and political parties. What is new is that elements of this transformation are now reaching circles that have historically been far more cautious in their approach to Israel.

It is, of course, too early to speak of a Western turn against Israel. The network of strategic interests, alliances and political forces supporting it remains extensive and influential, and there is still a considerable gap between changes in public opinion and changes in foreign policy. Yet Israel’s problem is no longer confined to the enormous damage done to its image since Gaza. Another question is gradually moving to the forefront: the legitimacy of Israeli policies themselves, and how far Western governments are prepared to continue defending them.

The letter acquires additional significance following Britain and France’s recognition of the State of Palestine last year. Recognition alone means little if the territory on which that state is supposed to exist is disappearing before everyone’s eyes. What does recognising Palestine actually mean if settlement expansion, displacement and the fragmentation of the West Bank continue without consequences?

The diplomats’ letter may not immediately change British or French policy, but its importance lies in what it tells us about the direction in which the debate is moving within the West.

The battle is no longer merely over Israel’s image in Western public opinion. It is beginning to reach institutions and elites that have historically formed part of the political environment that provided Israel with protection and support. If, at a later stage, these shifts extend to trade, arms and sanctions, we will no longer be talking simply about a change in Western attitudes towards Israel, but about a change in the very rules governing the relationship.