The Forum for Foreign Relations (FFR) offers this evidence to the UK Foreign Affairs Committee in response to the inquiry regarding efforts to achieve a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, amid the current geopolitical uncertainties. The submission provides recommendations based on the UK’s historical responsibility, strategic alliances, and its capability to influence the peace process. It takes a clear pro-Israel stance, emphasizing the necessity of a principled approach grounded in international law and moral clarity.

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has entered a new and more dangerous phase, exemplified by the unprecedented attack by Hamas, resulting in the loss of over 1,200 lives and widespread destruction. This conflict, set against the backdrop of global instability, demands consistent and resilient diplomatic efforts from the UK. With shifting global power dynamics, especially in relation to Russia’s war in Ukraine, and changes in leadership in both the Middle East and key Western capitals, the UK’s approach must adapt to ensure ongoing engagement with the peace process.

The UK’s role is central due to its historical connection to the region, including its past involvement in the Balfour Declaration and the post-WWI Mandate period, as well as its current relationships with Israel and Palestine. This legacy provides the UK with a unique credibility, which must be used to leverage diplomatic efforts, ensure consistency, and avoid allowing adversarial powers to exploit the situation.

The recommendations are designed to maintain a strategic focus on Israel’s security, the need for Jerusalem’s recognition as Israel’s undivided capital, and fostering diplomatic relations with key Arab states. The UK should strengthen ties with nations involved in the Abraham Accords, support multilateral peace efforts, counter malign influences (especially from Iran and Qatar), and ensure that economic and social benefits are integrated into peacebuilding efforts.

By drawing on lessons from past peace processes in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, and by applying these to the Israeli–Palestinian context, the UK can ensure that peace efforts not only endure but evolve towards a lasting resolution. The UK’s approach should be based on a firm stance on international law, mutual recognition, and justice, particularly through the unwavering recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a non-negotiable condition for genuine peace. This approach will safeguard the legitimacy of Israel, promote regional stability, and enhance the UK’s diplomatic influence globally.

In conclusion, the UK must remain resolute in its support for a two-state solution, while also ensuring that its strategies for peace include broader regional cooperation and a commitment to the principles of justice and fairness. The time for sustained, principled engagement is now.

Introduction and Context

About the Forum for Foreign Relations: The Forum for Foreign Relations (FFR) is an independent policy institute dedicated to advancing principled and pragmatic foreign policy. We welcome the Foreign Affairs Committee’s inquiry and offer this written evidence addressing how the UK can assure the resilience of efforts to achieve a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians amid today’s global uncertainties. This submission takes a clear pro-Israel stancegrounded in international law, strategic alliances, and moral clarity, while outlining actionable steps for peace.

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has entered a tumultuous new phase. Just over a year ago, the terrorist organisation Hamas launched an unprecedented attack, murdering over 1,200 Israelis and others and taking hundreds hostage [1]. Israel’s subsequent war against Hamas in Gaza, and clashes extending to Lebanon and elsewhere, have caused immense human suffering on all sides. Tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed or displaced in the Gaza conflict, even as Israel asserts its right to self-defence under international law [2]. This stark reality underscores both the moral urgency and the difficulty of achieving a peaceful resolution. The only tolerable outcome is a peaceful settlement, yet the path to get there remains fraught.

Compounding the challenge, the pursuit of Middle East peace now unfolds against a backdrop of global instability: Russia’s war in Ukraine has absorbed the attention and resources of the UK and its allies, testing Western unity and the international legal order. Shifting leadership in key countries adds uncertainty – for example, the United States’ foreign policy focus may pivot with changing administrations, and upcoming elections (in the US and elsewhere) could alter great power engagement in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the Middle East region itself is in flux: new conflicts and crises (from Syria and Yemen to the Sahel) compete for priority, and a rising multipolar world sees powers like China and Russia asserting greater influence [3], sometimes brokering their own regional deals. All this raises a pressing question: how can the UK ensure that efforts toward Israeli–Palestinian peace endure and succeed amid such uncertainty?

The UK’s answer must be rooted in consistency, clarity of purpose, and coalition-building. Britain has a historical role and responsibility in this conflict – from the Balfour Declaration of 1917 [4] and the post-WWI Mandate period which helped birth the State of Israel, to decades of support for Palestinian self-determination. This legacy gives the UK both a unique credibility and an obligation to actively promote a just and lasting peace. Today, the UK remains a close friend and ally of Israel, a leading supporter of a two-state solution, and a major donor to the Palestinian people. The Government’s long-standing position is clear: Israel deserves security within recognised borders, and Palestinians deserve a viable, sovereign state. Upholding this vision, especially in difficult times, is a test of the UK’s principled leadership on the world stage.

In this submission, we argue that the UK – as a pragmatic and principled actor with global reach – can and must lead in fortifying the peace process against external shocks. By leveraging its strategic alliances, recommitting to diplomatic engagement, and drawing lessons from past peace efforts, Britain can help ensure that the quest for Israeli–Palestinian peace not only stays alive but emerges more resilient. We outline the current geopolitical challenges, the UK’s capabilities and partnerships, lessons from other conflicts (Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Afghanistan and beyond), and specific recommendations for UK policy.

Global Uncertainties Challenging Peace Efforts

1. A World Preoccupied by Other Conflicts:

The war in Ukraine [5] exemplifies how a major conflict elsewhere can distract diplomatic attention and resources from the Middle East. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the UK and its allies have been rightly absorbed in supporting Ukraine and countering Russia’s aggression, which “challenge[s] the entire international order”. This has strained bandwidth for other crises. There is a risk of “a UK stretched between multiple crises” losing consistent focus on Israeli–Palestinian peace. The lesson of Ukraine, however, is that the West can unite effectively when its sense of mission is revived. The UK must apply a similar resolve to the Middle East: even as it aids Ukraine, it should ring-fence political capital for Israeli–Palestinian diplomacy. Otherwise, adversarial powers may fill the vacuum – or local parties may lose faith in international support for peace. Notably, Russia and China have used the Gaza war to accuse the West of double standards [6] (contrasting support for Ukraine with criticism of Israel). Maintaining a consistent principled stance – condemning aggression whether in Europe or the Middle East – is essential to counter such narratives and keep global support unified.

2. Shifting Leadership in the International Community:

Shifting leadership in key international capitals has injected a degree of uncertainty into ongoing peace efforts in the Middle East, particularly with President Trump in the White House. Under his administration, the U.S. has taken a distinctly unilateral approach to foreign policy, emphasised by the "America First" doctrine [7], which seeks to reduce U.S. diplomatic engagement in global affairs and recalibrate its alliances. This policy has already led to a significant shift in U.S. involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, as President Trump has shown a preference for a more transactional approach, often sidelining traditional diplomatic channels. His administration’s stance has emphasised Israel’s security concerns, though it has also drawn criticism for being one-sided and undermining multilateral negotiations.

The European Union has faced its own challenges in this context, with its responses to the Israel–Hamas conflict at times appearing divided. Within the EU, some leaders have been seen as too one-sided in their support for Palestinians, while others have called for a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [8]. Post-Brexit, the UK, now outside the EU, must navigate these divisions while recalibrating its own foreign policy and finding a way to work alongside European partners who may have differing priorities. A crucial task for the UK will be to balance its traditional relationship with the U.S. under President Trump, whose approach may diverge from previous administrations, with its relationships in Europe.

Within the Middle East, leadership transitions are also imminent. Israel has experienced frequent elections, with political oscillation between those prioritising security measures and those advocating for negotiations. On the Palestinian side, President Mahmoud Abbas’s advancing age raises concerns about the future of Palestinian leadership [9], with a potential shift that could either revitalise the peace process or lead to instability if not managed carefully. For the UK, this presents an opportunity to build relationships across the political spectrum in both Israel and Palestine, ensuring British foreign policy remains steady and adaptable irrespective of who holds power. Encouragingly, there is broad cross-party consensus in the UK on key principles, such as support for Israel’s security and a two-state solution, providing a stable foundation for continuity in policy regardless of leadership changes in Westminster or Washington.

This evolving geopolitical landscape requires the UK to remain agile and proactive, balancing traditional alliances with the need to foster diplomatic relationships across a more fragmented international community under President Trump’s leadership. The UK's approach should ensure its relevance on the world stage, even as the U.S. may adjust its diplomatic priorities under a distinctly nationalist administration.

3. A Rising Multipolar Competition:

We are witnessing the decline of Western political and economic dominance and the rise of a more multipolar world. This shift is particularly pronounced in the Middle East, where regional powers and emerging global actors are asserting themselves with increasing boldness. China’s involvement, exemplified by its role in brokering the Saudi–Iran détente in 2023 [10], demonstrates Beijing’s ambition to become a key player in regional security. The Chinese-mediated deal between Riyadh and Tehran was presented by Beijing as fostering a “wave of reconciliation” in the Middle East, though the long-term stability of such agreements remains uncertain.

For the Israeli–Palestinian arena, a more multipolar environment presents both opportunities and risks. On one hand, greater engagement from countries like China could help break regional deadlocks, as Beijing maintains relationships with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and even Iran, potentially positioning itself to play a bridging role. On the other hand, should Western influence decline, authoritarian powers may claim to support peace while undermining key democratic, legal, and humanitarian principles that the UK holds dear. This could lead to agreements that lack both legitimacy and sustainability, further stoking instability rather than fostering genuine reconciliation.

In this evolving geopolitical landscape, the UK must respond by embracing multilateralism but without ceding its values or principles. Relying too heavily on authoritarian or opportunistic players like Qatar risks undermining efforts for a stable and enduring peace. Qatar’s involvement in regional diplomacy, particularly with Hamas [11]—designated a proscribed terrorist organisation under British law—raises serious concerns. Despite presenting itself as a key mediator, Qatar’s longstanding ties to Hamas, and its efforts to offer financial and political support to the group, contradict its supposed role as a neutral broker. This complicates any efforts to create lasting peace in the region, as Qatar’s allegiance to actors that openly reject Israel’s right to exist risks perpetuating the very conflict it seeks to resolve.

In contrast, the countries involved in the Abraham Accords—the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan—have demonstrated a much more pragmatic and constructive approach to diplomacy. These nations have actively sought to build peaceful relations with Israel, recognising that regional stability and prosperity are best achieved through cooperation rather than confrontation. Their commitment to peace is rooted not just in economic benefits but in a shared desire for a new regional order based on mutual respect, security, and stability.

The UK should therefore recalibrate its approach by leaning more heavily on the Abraham Accords nations. These countries offer a clearer and more consistent commitment to peaceful coexistence with Israel, and their diplomatic engagement has already yielded positive results, from trade partnerships to shared security interests. By supporting and reinforcing these relationships, the UK can play a pivotal role in advancing peace while aligning itself with reliable regional partners who are committed to long-term stability, rather than engaging with opportunistic actors like Qatar, whose influence is often disruptive and counterproductive.

The UK Foreign Secretary’s recent shuttle diplomacy, visiting Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar to prevent escalation and engaging Iran by phone, is a valuable diplomatic effort, but it must be complemented by a strategic shift towards working more closely with the Abraham Accords countries. These nations, as stable and increasingly influential players, provide a stronger foundation for peace and security. Moving forward, the UK should prioritise engagement with the Abraham Accords signatories, institutionalising regular consultations and building diplomatic mechanisms that capitalise on their growing role in the region. This approach ensures that UK foreign policy remains firmly anchored in principled diplomacy, while also adapting to the changing dynamics of the Middle East.

By fostering closer relationships with the Abraham Accords countries, the UK can not only secure its own interests but also support the creation of a regional architecture that prioritises cooperation over conflict. This is a far more promising pathway to peace than relying on the ambiguous and at times contradictory role of Qatar, whose involvement with terrorist factions casts doubt on its suitability as a reliable peace broker.

4. Instability Across the Middle East and Beyond:

The Middle East is currently grappling with a series of intersecting crises that threaten to spill over into the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The ongoing war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza risks igniting a broader regional conflict. Tensions with Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border [12], unrest in the West Bank, and rocket fire from groups in Syria [13] and Yemen all underscore the region’s inherent volatility. Elsewhere, ongoing conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and the Sahel continue to fuel extremism and humanitarian disasters, consuming significant international resources meant for peacekeeping and aid. These volatile conditions can undermine efforts towards Israeli–Palestinian peace by empowering spoilers, such as extremist militias, and by exhausting the resources required for Palestinian state-building.

One particularly salient example of these threats is the Shia Crescent, a regional phenomenon driven by the malign influence of the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose backing of militias throughout the region adds to the security threats faced by Israel and its neighbours. Iran’s actions have exacerbated tensions, arming and financing groups that destabilise the region [14]. The presence of Islamic State in conflict zones also creates further layers of insecurity, with extremist ideologies spreading across borders and complicating efforts to achieve peace.

The presence of these malign forces highlights the importance of resilience in the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. A process that fails to recognise these wider regional dynamics will struggle to achieve lasting peace. The UK can play a pivotal role in this context by helping to integrate Israeli–Palestinian efforts into a broader strategy for Middle Eastern stability. This could be achieved through diplomatic initiatives such as supporting the revival of an expanded Middle East Quartet or establishing a new contact group that includes Arab states. Britain’s longstanding engagement and deeper understanding of the region’s politics give it a unique ability to recognise and address the connections between the Israeli–Palestinian situation and the wider regional concerns, such as Egypt’s security or the interests of Gulf states.

By addressing the broader causes of instability—such as terrorism, arms smuggling, and proxy conflicts—the UK can help to create an environment in which Israeli–Palestinian negotiations can survive external shocks. This comprehensive approach is essential to ensuring that the peace process is not derailed by the upheaval around it.

Furthermore, the impact of this regional instability is not just a foreign policy challenge for Britain; it has also started to manifest on our streets. Radical ideologies are being exported, and through social media and other channels, certain extremist views are being spread, particularly among younger generations. This reflects a worrying trend seen before the Islamic Revolution in Iran, when specific ideologies were used to mobilise youth to advance political and ideological goals. We are witnessing something similar today, with radical groups attempting to recruit and indoctrinate young people in the West—leading to an exportation of violent extremism that poses a threat to both the Middle East and the broader world.

The situation demands that we approach the Israeli–Palestinian peace process with a clear-eyed understanding of the wider geopolitical forces at play. Israel remains a steadfast partner for peace and stability in the region, and it is crucial that the UK does not succumb to the temptation of consensus-driven policies that would compromise Israel’s security or undermine its legitimacy. The temptation to reach a “settlement” for the sake of political convenience or electoral gain can be dangerous. The UK must remain committed to its long-term strategy, ensuring that Israel’s right to exist and defend itself is safeguarded in the face of shifting global dynamics.

In conclusion, the current uncertainty—marked by conflict elsewhere, leadership changes, multipolar competition, and regional instability—poses significant challenges to sustained peace efforts. Yet, it underscores the pressing need for resilience. The UK’s role is to ensure that, despite these headwinds, the journey towards peace is not derailed. This will require a clear strategy, steadfast commitment, and a recognition of the broader regional context in which the Israeli–Palestinian conflict exists. As we will discuss in the following sections, the UK must continue to advocate for peace, all while navigating the evolving geopolitics of the region.

The UK’s Strategic Position and Alliances

Despite the turbulent global scene, the United Kingdom possesses significant capabilities and partnerships to bolster peace efforts. As a medium-sized power with outsized diplomatic reach, the UK can leverage both its historical ties and its modern alliances in support of a resilient peace process.

1. Historical Responsibility and International Law:

The UK’s historical role in the Holy Land – from the Balfour Declaration to the British Mandate – continues to resonate today. This history provides Britain with a unique credibility: it is recognised as possessing “a deeper understanding of the region and its politics than other leading nations.” This historical connection also imposes a duty to be not only fair but principled in its approach. The foundation of the UK’s position must be rooted in international law, and the UK has long affirmed that any solution must align with UN resolutions and agreed principles. Notably, UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)[15], which calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 and for the respect of every state's right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries, remains a key touchstone for UK policy.

The UK’s current policy – advocating for “a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as a shared capital, and a just solution for refugees” – aligns with this international legal consensus. A pro-Israel stance grounded in law means that the UK will consistently defend Israel’s right to exist and to protect itself against terrorism, while also insisting that Israel’s actions remain within the parameters of the Geneva Conventions and other International Humanitarian Law (IHL) obligations. The March 2023 UK–Israel “2030 Roadmap”[16] underscored that “all states have a duty to comply with their obligations under international law” and that scrutiny of Israel in international forums, such as the UN, must be “impartial and proportionate.”

In practice, this position translates into moral clarity: the UK condemns unequivocally the deliberate targeting of civilians – whether in the form of Hamas’s rocket attacks and massacres, or any disproportionate use of force that endangers Palestinian civilians. The roadmap explicitly rejected the use of terms like “apartheid” in relation to Israel as unhelpful and affirmed that direct negotiations, not international courts, are the only viable path to a lasting peace.

By steadfastly adhering to these principles, the UK maintains credibility both with Israel – as a reliable ally who understands Israel’s security imperatives – and with international partners who uphold the rule of law. This principled approach is essential for resilience in UK policy. It prevents Britain’s stance from swaying with the political winds and signals to both Israelis and Palestinians that the UK’s engagement is grounded in justice, not political expediency.

2. The UK–Israel Special Partnership:

The United Kingdom today stands as one of Israel’s closest allies on the global stage, united by shared values and mutual interests. Both nations are democracies that champion the principles of innovation, free enterprise, and the rule of law. As the 2030 bilateral roadmap states, “Israel and the UK are united in the belief that democracy… is the finest form of government,” and that democratic norms are fundamental to a rules-based international system. This ideological kinship forms the foundation of an ever-deepening strategic alliance between the two countries.

High-level political ties between the UK and Israel are robust, with regular meetings between Britain’s Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary and their Israeli counterparts. An annual Strategic Dialogue at the foreign minister level has been established to further deepen cooperation. Security and defence ties are particularly strong, with the UK and Israel conducting an annual Defence Strategic Dialogue and maintaining well-established relationships in intelligence and military technology. The British Embassy’s defence section enjoys "very good access" to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Ministry of Defence, enabling candid discussions on security coordination, including sensitive issues relating to the Palestinian territories via Israel’s COGAT mechanism. This access provides the UK with valuable insights into Israel’s security perceptions and military planning.

Economically, the UK is one of Israel’s major trading partners, with bilateral trade exceeding £5 billion. Negotiations are also underway for a more ambitious free trade agreement, aimed at boosting commerce in services and technology. Beyond trade, Britain and Israel collaborate extensively in science, innovation, and health, from joint research and development projects to the establishment of a new health-tech gateway. These strong links in various sectors enhance the UK’s ability to act as a constructive player in the Middle East peace process. They allow Britain to engage with Israeli leaders from a position of authority and empathy. When Britain urges Israel to take steps towards peace or show restraint in military operations, it does so as a trusted friend with exceptional access in Jerusalem and a direct ear in the Knesset.

Importantly, the UK’s influence enables it to reinforce moderate voices within Israel. By demonstrating that Israel’s long-term security and prosperity are best ensured through a peace agreement—rather than in isolation—Britain can encourage Israel to engage in the pursuit of a lasting peace. The Abraham Accords, which the UK has applauded as both “historic” and transformative for regional peace, have shown Israel the tangible benefits of diplomatic normalisation with Arab states. The UK is working closely with Israel to “deepen and expand” these regional breakthroughs, including through forums like the Negev Summit.

However, it is crucial to recognise that Britain’s pro-Israel stance must not be taken for granted. It is not a stance of uncritical support, but one of strategic reassurance. The UK stands firmly by Israel’s right to security and is ready to assist in securing the ultimate guarantee of peace: a durable agreement with Israel’s neighbours, including a Palestinian state that peacefully coexists with Israel.

But a word of caution is warranted: if the UK were to change course or shift its stance towards Israel in a way that undermines the deep trust and mutual understanding built over decades, there is a real risk of eroding this exceptional relationship. The prospect of severing ties that have been hard-earned should not be dismissed lightly. As global political currents shift, the UK must carefully consider the long-term implications of any departure from its current position. A failure to maintain this vital alliance with Israel could have repercussions that extend far beyond bilateral relations, potentially weakening Britain’s role as a trusted partner in the region and globally.

In sum, the UK must continue to stand by Israel—upholding both its right to security and its aspirations for a lasting peace. But in doing so, it must also be mindful that, without careful management of this relationship, the risks of losing Israel as a key partner could become a reality, and that is a consequence the UK should avoid at all costs.

3. Partnerships with Arab States and Regional Actors:

The UK also enjoys strong relationships with key Arab states, which are indispensable to any lasting Israeli–Palestinian peace. Britain’s ties with Egypt and Jordan are especially vital. Both countries have peace treaties with Israel and significant custodial roles in the Palestinian issue: Egypt frequently mediates Israel–Gaza ceasefires, while Jordan is the custodian of the holy sites in Jerusalem and hosts millions of Palestinian refugees. For many years, the UK has provided Egypt and Jordan with military aid, development support, and diplomatic backing. During the recent Gaza conflict, the UK coordinated closely with Egypt (to facilitate humanitarian access at Rafah) and Jordan (to manage regional fallout), as demonstrated by the Foreign Secretary’s visits to both countries.

In the Gulf, the UK’s relations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have grown strategically strong, encompassing defence contracts, energy partnerships, and cultural exchanges. These states now play an increasingly prominent role in the Palestinian arena: Qatar, despite hosting Hamas’s political leaders, also mediates in hostage negotiations; Saudi Arabia, with encouragement from both the UK and the US, has floated the possibility of normalising relations with Israel, which could fundamentally alter the dynamics of the conflict; the UAE and Bahrain have normalised relations with Israel and are investing in development projects, including those in Palestinian areas.

While the UK can leverage its strong relationships with Gulf states to create a regional safety net for peace, it must also recognise the dangers posed by some of its partners. Qatar, in particular, is a deeply problematic actor. While it plays a significant role in mediating peace talks and fostering dialogue, Qatar continues to host Hamas—a terrorist organisation proscribed by the UK government. The country’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and its support for groups that challenge the established order in the Middle East remain concerning. The UK must be cautious about relying too heavily on Qatar, as its involvement could risk undermining the credibility and stability of any peace efforts, especially when the country continues to host and support actors that exacerbate instability.

Similarly, Iran’s influence cannot be ignored. While it remains an adversary of the UK in many respects, Iran wields significant power over groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both of which contribute to the perpetuation of violence and instability. The Islamic Republic’s malign influence in the region, including its backing of terrorist groups and its destabilising role in Syria and Yemen, poses a direct threat to peace and security. The UK’s willingness to engage diplomatically with Iran—such as Foreign Secretary James Cleverly’s rare phone call to Iran to urge de-escalation—demonstrates the necessity of direct dialogue, but it must be paired with a constant vigilance against Iran’s regional ambitions.

In this context, the UK should use multilateral forums such as the UN, the G20, and bilateral channels to rally regional players behind de-escalation and dialogue. The Middle East Quartet (comprising the UN, US, EU, and Russia), established in 2002, remains a formal mechanism for the peace process. However, given the geopolitical rifts and the EU’s current disengagement, the Quartet has largely become moribund. Although the UK is no longer a member of the Quartet following Brexit, it can work in parallel with it or advocate for the creation of an expanded contact group that includes Arab states.

Britain’s position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council gives it a unique platform to shape international resolutions on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The UK has often acted as a moderating voice, supporting resolutions that uphold the two-state solution and international law while vetoing or dissenting when resolutions appear unfairly biased. This principled stance enhances the UK’s credibility on the global stage. By working closely with the US (whose veto power is decisive on Israel-related resolutions) and engaging with other key global players like France and China, the UK can help shape Security Council statements that reinforce, rather than undermine, peace efforts.

In summary, Britain’s global diplomatic network, spanning from Washington to Riyadh, Brussels to Ankara, is a formidable asset. When aligned towards a common goal, it can help ensure that, no matter who leads these capitals, a core consensus in favour of Israeli–Palestinian peace is maintained. However, this vision must be careful not to fall prey to the influence of actors like Qatar and Iran, whose involvement could undermine the credibility and effectiveness of any peace process. The UK must continue to take a strong stance on these matters—engaging with regional actors responsibly, but always remaining steadfast in its commitment to democratic values and the rule of law.

4. The UK as a Pragmatic and Principled Actor:

At the heart of all these alliances is the UK’s identity as a pragmatic yet principled actor. "Pragmatic" in that Britain has a longstanding record of realpolitik in the Middle East—engaging all sides (except designated terrorists) to pursue incremental gains. For example, UK diplomats maintain open channels with the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and with Palestinian civil society, while firmly distancing themselves from Hamas, which the UK has designated a terrorist organisation. British aid agencies and military trainers work on the ground to strengthen Palestinian governance and security, with the UK’s British Support Team having trained Palestinian security forces [17], granting Britain substantial influence over Palestinian security coordination with Israel.

Simultaneously, UK officials engage with Israeli decision-makers across the political spectrum. This enables Britain to act as a communication bridge and propose practical confidence-building measures, aimed at fostering cooperation. But Britain’s pragmatism is always paired with "moral clarity." The UK has not hesitated to call out egregious human rights violations—such as condemning Hamas's actions as terrorism and antisemitism or critiquing excessive Israeli settlement expansion that undermines the prospects of a negotiated two-state solution.

This principled approach is grounded in Britain’s domestic values. The UK is proud of its commitment to combating antisemitism and anti-Israel bias, exemplified by its joint efforts with Israel to “tackle the singling out of Israel in international bodies” and promote fairness. At the same time, Britain has consistently defended Palestinian rights, providing significant humanitarian aid. The UK was among the top donors to Palestinian development, contributing £349 million from 2011–2015, and continues to support UNRWA and other relief initiatives.

This balanced approach—supporting Israel’s legitimacy and security, while advocating for Palestinian rights and self-determination—positions the UK as a uniquely credible interlocutor. It mirrors the role played by Norway in the Oslo Accords or Ireland in various peace dialogues: a nation that can engage with both sides with both sympathy and tough love. As global leadership shifts and crises emerge, the UK’s steady, principle-based policy serves as a linchpin of resilience. Allies and adversaries alike know where Britain stands: with Israel against terror and delegitimisation, and with the cause of Palestinian self-determination through negotiation.

However, it is essential that the UK does not fall prey to the calls for change that are being promoted by radicals and ideologues. To shift away from its established stance, to abandon the pursuit of justice and fairness in favour of political expediency, would be to betray not only Britain’s longstanding commitment to Israel’s security and legitimacy but also its core principles of justice and equity. Such a departure would play into the hands of those who seek to undermine Israel’s right to exist and to exploit the conflict for their own nefarious agendas.

History has shown us that adopting an approach driven by ideological zeal or under external political pressure can result in damaging consequences. It would not only betray the spirit of justice that has guided the UK's position for decades but also undermine the long-term prospects for peace in the region. The UK must remain unwavering in its principled commitment to Israel, recognising that peace can only be achieved through dialogue, mutual recognition, and respect for international law. To abandon this stance would risk handing the reins to forces that seek to undermine Israel's very existence and replace diplomacy with conflict.

Maintaining this approach—across successive governments and amid geopolitical flux—will reassure all parties that the UK’s commitment to peace remains enduring and reliable. To falter now would betray the very principles that have made Britain a force for good and a trusted ally of Israel in the pursuit of lasting peace.

Having reviewed the UK’s positioning, we now turn to what can be learned from past peace processes to guide the UK’s strategy, before presenting concrete recommendations.

Learning from Past Peace Efforts: Lessons for Resilience

History offers a wealth of lessons on how to achieve – and sustain – peace in protracted conflicts. The Israeli–Palestinian peace efforts can draw from both the successes and failures of other global peace processes. By examining cases such as Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and past Middle East peace initiatives, the UK can learn valuable lessons to strengthen resilience in the current peace process.

1. Northern Ireland – Persistence and Inclusive Diplomacy:

The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 [18], which ended decades of conflict in Northern Ireland, is often cited as a model for peace negotiations. Its relevance to the Middle East is not necessarily in the specifics of that situation but in the process that led to success: inclusive dialogue, creative diplomacy, and long-term commitment from all parties involved. One key lesson from Northern Ireland is that seemingly intractable conflicts can be resolved through political agreements, not endless warfare. For years, many believed that the “Troubles” were unsolvable, yet principled leadership and dialogue with former enemies ultimately paved the way for peace.

The UK should carry this message of hope to the Israeli and Palestinian publics: peace is possible, even after generations of bloodshed. Another lesson is the importance of involving all stakeholders. In Northern Ireland, this meant bringing Sinn Féin (the political wing of the IRA) to the table once they renounced violence, as well as engaging loyalist paramilitaries. In the Israeli–Palestinian context, this raises difficult questions about how to handle groups like Hamas. The UK’s current stance (no contact with Hamas until it renounces terror and recognises Israel) is consistent with both British and international law. However, Britain should continue to explore creative ways to integrate Gaza into the peace framework, perhaps via third-party mediation or a technocratic administration, to avoid having a permanently excluded spoiler.

Northern Ireland also demonstrated the value of third-party mediation. U.S. Senator George Mitchell played a crucial role as an even-handed broker, much like the U.S. has traditionally done in the Middle East. The UK might consider supporting or cultivating analogous mediators—whether a special envoy or a multilateral team—that have the trust of both Israelis and Palestinians and can facilitate ongoing dialogue.

Finally, Northern Ireland emphasised the need for a peace dividend and robust civil society engagement. The conflict’s end was bolstered by economic revival, EU funding, and the International Fund for Ireland, which focused on community reconciliation. This directly inspires today’s proposal for an International Fund for Israeli–Palestinian Peace [19]. Notably, the UK was the first country to endorse this concept in 2018, explicitly drawing on lessons from Northern Ireland to provide long-term support for peacebuilding. In 2024, Keir Starmer, then Prime Minister, pledged to convene an inaugural meeting to rally global support for the Fund. This is a concrete example of how the UK is already applying these lessons, committing resources to grassroots peace efforts so that public support for coexistence can endure even amid political turbulence.

In summary, Northern Ireland teaches the value of patience, inclusion, third-party mediation, and tangible peace dividends—all of which the UK should integrate into its approach to Israel–Palestine.

2. Bosnia and the Balkans – International Guarantees for Peace:

The Bosnian War of the 1990s, which involved horrific ethnic violence, was ended by the Dayton Peace Agreement of 1995 [20]. While the agreement was imperfect, it has largely held for over 25 years. The Dayton process offers lessons on the role of decisive international intervention and robust post-conflict guarantees. One key takeaway is that security arrangements can ensure the durability of a peace deal. In Bosnia, the warring parties would not have trusted each other to disarm without an external enforcer, so NATO led a multinational force (IFOR) to oversee the ceasefire and separation of forces.

For the Israeli–Palestinian context, a similar approach might involve the deployment of an international peacekeeping or monitoring mission to oversee key aspects of a final-status agreement. This could include monitoring borders, providing security in a demilitarised Palestinian state, or overseeing the special arrangements for Jerusalem. While the idea of foreign troops in the Holy Land is controversial, the Bosnian precedent suggests that creative solutions—possibly involving a mix of UN, NATO, or regional forces—could provide the necessary security guarantees for Israel and Palestinians to make significant concessions.

Bosnia also illustrated the necessity of power-sharing and constitutional frameworks to accommodate rival claims. The Dayton Agreement partitioned Bosnia into entities and instituted a rotating presidency. In Israel–Palestine, the eventual two-state solution will separate sovereignty, but delicate power-sharing will remain (e.g., governance of Jerusalem, shared water resources). The lesson is that peace agreements must be granular and exhaustive, addressing all core issues to prevent ambiguities from becoming flashpoints later.

Another lesson is that peace deals may freeze conflicts rather than fully resolve them. Bosnia remains peaceful but politically dysfunctional, with ethnic divisions still stark. The UK should temper any “Dayton-style” approach with the aim of not just stopping violence but creating a framework that can evolve toward deeper reconciliation. In practice, for Israel–Palestine, this might mean coupling any interim or initial agreement with strong incentives and timelines to tackle harder issues over time, preventing a permanent limbo.

The UK, with its experience in Bosnia, knows the importance of implementation follow-through. Thus, if and when an Israeli–Palestinian peace deal is on the table, the UK should be ready to contribute to international guarantees – be it sending peacekeepers, monitors, or financial support for reconstruction – to ensure the deal holds. This willingness to stay engaged after signatures (and not repeat mistakes of premature disengagement) is crucial for resilience.

3. Afghanistan – The Perils of Abandonment and the Need for Local Ownership:

Not all peace efforts succeed, and the tragic collapse of Afghanistan’s state-building project in 2021 serves as a cautionary tale [21]. After two decades of international military presence and nation-building, the withdrawal of NATO forces and the collapse of the Kabul government showed how fragile gains can be lost if not rooted in inclusive local buy-in and if international commitment wanes.

The first lesson is the importance of local ownership. As one observer noted, “Only Afghans can make peace with each other,” and international support must be tied to preserving legitimate local institutions. In the Israeli–Palestinian context, this means that although international mediators can facilitate and guarantee peace, it is the Israelis and Palestinians themselves who must drive the peace process and feel invested in it. Any attempt to impose a solution that key constituencies reject is likely to fail. For example, a deal that lacks support from significant portions of Palestinian society (or is reached with an unelected leadership without a mandate) could meet the same fate as the U.S.-brokered Doha accord with the Taliban—an agreement that didn’t secure genuine peace.

Thus, the UK should encourage broad consultation and democratic legitimacy in any peace moves: supporting Palestinian elections and unity efforts so that a future agreement has a strong mandate; and encouraging Israel to engage not only the Palestinian Authority but also to consider the views of its own Palestinian citizens and diverse civil society, to ensure consensus for peace at home.

The second lesson from Afghanistan is the danger of deprioritising peace when other priorities surge. The U.S. and its allies (including the UK) at times deprioritised Afghan reconciliation while focusing on military efforts or other global issues. This resonates with the current risk of overlooking the Middle East while dealing with crises like Ukraine. Consistent diplomacy – even during crises – is necessary to avoid giving hardliners an opening.

The third lesson is about conditionality of support: the international community tried to condition future aid to the Afghan government on power-sharing and respect for rights, but once troops withdrew, that leverage mostly evaporated. For Israel–Palestine, the UK and donors should likewise use aid and recognition as levers to encourage steps toward peace, but they must also remain engaged enough on the ground to ensure these conditions have teeth.

One positive takeaway is that diplomacy with regional spoilers (Pakistan in Afghanistan’s case, or Iran/Syria in the Palestinian case) is crucial – sidelining them entirely can undermine peace from the flanks. The UK’s outreach to Iran to prevent escalation in Gaza reflects understanding of this need.

In short, Afghanistan’s collapse admonishes: do not withdraw international support abruptly, do not sideline local voices, and do not underestimate extremists’ ability to wait out half-hearted peace efforts. Resilient peace requires patient, continued engagement and planning for worst-case scenarios (e.g. how to sustain a Palestinian state if external help wanes – building self-reliance is key).

4. Past Middle East Peace Processes – Lessons Learned the Hard Way:

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has its own history of peace efforts, each providing invaluable lessons. The Oslo Accords(1993–95)[22] taught us about the importance of sequencing and trust. Oslo created interim arrangements (the PA, limited self-rule) but deferred core issues. Initially, it brought hope and diplomacy—mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO was historic. However, the interim period saw a breakdown of trust as violence continued (suicide bombings, assassinations) and neither side felt the other fulfilled commitments.

The lesson is that gaps in a peace process will be filled by spoilers. Thus, UK policymakers should emphasise measures to maintain momentum and accountability. After any ceasefire or interim deal, there should be monitoring and enforcement of obligations (perhaps by a Quartet or UN mechanism) so that violations (like terror attacks or unilateral expansions) are addressed immediately.

Oslo also highlighted that economic peace alone is insufficient but still necessary. The “peace dividend” promised (jobs, development in Palestinian territories) was slow, and many Palestinians saw little improvement, which weakened faith in diplomacy. This underscores the importance of UK-led international funding and investment initiatives to show people tangible benefits of peace early on.

The Camp David/Taba talks (2000–2001)[23] and the Arab Peace Initiative (2002) showed that bold proposals can shift narratives, even if they don’t immediately succeed. Israel’s far-reaching offer in 2000 and the Arab League’s offer of full normalisation in exchange for a Palestinian state in 2002 both put comprehensive endgames on the table. While they did not result in agreements then, they remain reference points now. The UK should continue advocating for the logic of the Arab Peace Initiative—regional acceptance of Israel goes hand in hand with Palestinian statehood.

Lastly, the disengagement from Gaza (2005)[24] and the subsequent Hamas takeover (2007) teach that any political vacuum or humanitarian neglect will be exploited by extremists. Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was meant to give the region a chance to develop peacefully, but the lack of a political agreement and economic progress contributed to Hamas’s rise. For the UK, this means that improvements on the ground are not just humanitarian tasks, but strategic imperatives to undercut extremism.

The tapestry of past peace processes suggests a clear conclusion: resilient peace is built on inclusive dialogue, credible guarantees, sustained international and regional support, economic and social investments, and the marginalisation of spoilers through both force and incentive. The UK has either participated in or closely observed these lessons in practice. Now, it should apply them proactively to the Israeli–Palestinian context, where the need for a durable resolution is as urgent as ever.

The Recognition of Jerusalem: A Condition Sine Qua Non for Peace

Any genuine peace process between Israel and the Palestinians must begin with the unequivocal recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided and eternal capital of Israel. This recognition is not merely a political necessity, but a moral imperative, and a just reparation for the violence and existential threats that Israel has faced since its establishment in 1948.

Jerusalem is the spiritual and historical heart of the Jewish people. For millennia, it has been the symbol of Jewish identity, faith, and resilience. To deny Israel its rightful capital is not only to ignore the profound historical connection that the Jewish people have with the city, but to undermine the very essence of Israel’s legitimacy. The refusal to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a denial of the fundamental right of self-determination for the Jewish people. For decades, Israel has been subjected to violent opposition, with the city of Jerusalem repeatedly targeted by acts of terror and violence, simply because Israel dares to exist as a sovereign state.

The violence Israel has faced—from the wars of 1948 and 1967 to the ongoing terror attacks perpetrated by groups like Hamas—has never been about borders or policies, but about the very existence of the Jewish state. The repeated efforts to erase Israel from the map have had devastating consequences for its people. Jerusalem, as Israel’s capital, has been at the centre of this struggle. It has endured the weight of history, the pain of division, and the threat of destruction. To deny Israel its right to have Jerusalem as its undivided and eternal capital is not just a denial of historical truth, but a perpetuation of the violence that has haunted the Jewish people for generations.

The recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital must not be seen as a mere political concession, but as a just reparation for the suffering and violence Israel has endured. It is a moral response to the constant threats against its very existence. For over seventy years, Israel has faced constant attempts to delegitimise its right to exist, and its capital, Jerusalem, has been at the epicentre of this ongoing struggle. The refusal to accept Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem is a direct continuation of this assault on its legitimacy.

Peace cannot be built on the denial of Israel’s right to exist and its right to self-determination. A peace that seeks to withhold Jerusalem from Israel, or treat its capital as a bargaining chip, is a peace built on injustice. It undermines the very foundation upon which a lasting and meaningful peace can be built. Jerusalem must be recognised as Israel’s undivided capital, and this must be a non-negotiable condition for any future peace agreement.

This recognition is essential not only for Israel’s legitimacy, but also for regional peace and security. The failure to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital emboldens those who seek to delegitimise Israel’s existence. It perpetuates the false narrative that Israel has no right to its homeland. The recognition of Jerusalem is a clear statement that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right to determine its own capital, to defend its citizens, and to live in peace. To delay or deny this recognition would be to reward the forces of extremism, violence, and hatred that have long sought to destroy Israel.

Moreover, the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital must be viewed in the context of justice for Israel, rather than a compromise for peace. This is a reparation for the violence and terror that Israel has faced for decades. Israel’s right to its capital is undeniable, and it is essential that the international community uphold this truth. The absence of this recognition is a denial of justice, and it fuels the very extremism that makes peace difficult to achieve.

The UK, as a key player in the international community, must champion the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital. This is a necessary step for any peace agreement to be viable. For peace to be durable, it must be founded on justice and historical truth, not political expediency. The UK should not fall into the trap of appeasing those who seek to undermine Israel’s right to exist. Peace built on the denial of Israel’s capital will never lead to lasting peace, but only to further conflict.

In the Israeli–Palestinian context, any genuine peace agreement must be rooted in mutual recognition and respect for sovereignty. The UK should make it clear that peace with Israel cannot be achieved by denying its legitimacy, and that any agreement that does not recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital is a peace agreement that is fundamentally flawed. For peace to be genuine, it must involve full recognition of Israel’s sovereignty, and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is the most crucial step in this process.

In conclusion, the recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided and eternal capital of Israel is a condition sine qua non for any meaningful peace agreement. This recognition is not just a political gesture—it is a just reparation for the violence Israel has suffered and a necessary foundation for any lasting peace. The UK must stand firm on this principle and lead the international community in recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Only then can peace, based on justice and historical truth, have a chance to endure.

Recommendations: A UK Action Plan for Peace Resilience

Given the multifaceted and challenging landscape surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian peace process, the UK must adopt a strategic and principled approach to ensure that efforts toward a lasting resolution endure, even in the face of global uncertainties. The UK’s unique position, combining historical responsibility, diplomatic reach, and strong alliances, provides it with the tools necessary to navigate these complexities. Below are specific recommendations that draw on lessons from past peace efforts, international law, and the evolving geopolitical environment.

1. Uphold Consistent Support for Israel’s Security and Sovereignty

The UK must continue to assert Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself, particularly in the face of ongoing threats from militant groups like Hamas. This stance must be unyielding, as Israel's security is paramount for the region’s stability. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided and eternal capital must be a condition sine qua non for any peace agreement. The UK should be clear in supporting Israel’s sovereignty over its capital, reinforcing the moral and legal argument that peace cannot be built on the denial of this fundamental right. Diplomatic efforts to achieve peace must be grounded in this recognition, and the UK should consistently advocate for this position in multilateral forums, particularly the UN.

2. Strengthen Diplomatic Engagement with Abraham Accords Nations

To ensure peace and stability in the region, the UK should prioritise deepening relationships with countries that have shown a genuine commitment to peace, such as the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. These nations, as signatories to the Abraham Accords, offer a pathway to a more pragmatic and stable regional order based on mutual respect, security, and cooperation. The UK should support the further expansion of these accords, building diplomatic mechanisms that institutionalise engagement with these countries. Their involvement can help mitigate the influence of adversarial powers like Qatar, whose ties to Hamas and other destabilising actors complicate peace efforts.

3. Promote Multilateral Approaches to Middle East Peace

As the international system becomes increasingly multipolar, the UK should continue to play a leadership role in multilateral diplomacy. This includes working closely with the UN, EU, and the US to foster an inclusive and balanced peace process. The UK should advocate for an expanded peace framework that incorporates key regional actors, particularly those with direct stakes in the outcome, such as Egypt and Jordan, both of which hold significant roles in Palestinian affairs. The UK’s involvement in peacekeeping or monitoring missions, particularly in Jerusalem and at critical borders, can provide vital security guarantees that will underpin any future agreement.

4. Counter Malign Influences and Maintain Vigilance Against Extremism

The UK must continue to take a firm stance against the Shia Crescent and the malign influence of Iran in the region. Iran’s support for proxy groups that destabilise the region, including Hamas and Hezbollah, is a direct threat to peace. The UK should continue diplomatic efforts to limit Iran's regional influence, especially in Gaza and Lebanon, while working to prevent the further spread of extremism. In parallel, Britain should be vigilant against the growing threat of radicalisation within its own borders, recognising the importance of counter-extremism strategies that prevent the indoctrination of vulnerable individuals.

5. Leverage Historical Relationships and International Law to Foster a Just Peace

The UK has a historical responsibility towards both Israel and the Palestinian people. The legacy of the Balfour Declaration and Britain’s past role in the region obliges it to take a balanced and principled approach in its support for a two-state solution. This includes steadfast commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for secure and recognised boundaries for Israel, and ensuring that Israel’s right to self-defence is respected under international law. The UK should continue to resist one-sided narratives and reaffirm that peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations, not through international courts or imposed solutions. Moreover, the UK should advocate for increased international support for the Palestinian Authority’s governance and development efforts, ensuring that Palestinian state-building is supported alongside efforts to promote peace.

6. Support and Facilitate Inclusive Peace Talks

The UK should promote the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders in the peace process, including moderate Palestinian factions, to ensure any peace agreement is legitimate and sustainable. This may involve encouraging Palestinian elections, promoting political unity, and facilitating communication between Israeli and Palestinian leaders across the political spectrum. The UK must also support third-party mediators with the trust of both parties, as seen in the Northern Ireland peace process, to help facilitate dialogue and build confidence.

7. Prioritise the Integration of Economic and Social Peace Dividends

Any peace agreement must be accompanied by a tangible peace dividend that demonstrates the immediate benefits of cooperation for both Israelis and Palestinians. The UK should continue to support economic cooperation initiatives, including investments in Palestinian infrastructure, education, and job creation. Drawing on lessons from Northern Ireland and Bosnia, the UK should encourage economic partnerships that benefit both sides, focusing on areas such as trade, technology, and healthcare. A sustainable peace must be underpinned by social and economic resilience, ensuring that people on both sides have a vested interest in the success of the peace process.

8. Promote Regional Stability through Comprehensive Security Initiatives

The UK's commitment to the region must extend beyond the Israeli–Palestinian peace process to include broader Middle Eastern stability. This can be achieved by integrating Israeli–Palestinian peace efforts into a wider regional framework that addresses threats such as terrorism, arms smuggling, and proxy conflicts. The UK should leverage its strong diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf states to create a cooperative regional security architecture. This could include support for regional counter-terrorism efforts, the creation of demilitarised zones, and the implementation of confidence-building measures to reduce cross-border tensions.

9. Strengthen Public Diplomacy and Combat Extremism

To complement diplomatic efforts, the UK must also address the ideological dimension of the conflict, particularly the exportation of extremist ideologies. The rise of radicalisation in the West, fuelled by social media and extremist rhetoric, poses a significant challenge to both regional and global stability. The UK should continue to invest in counter-radicalisation initiatives, working with international partners to prevent the spread of violent ideologies. This includes efforts to educate young people on the dangers of extremism, as well as promoting interfaith dialogue and peace education in the region.

In the face of global uncertainty and regional instability, the UK must remain a steadfast leader in the pursuit of Israeli–Palestinian peace. By adhering to its historical responsibilities, engaging with reliable regional actors, and maintaining a principled stance on international law, the UK can help ensure that peace efforts not only survive but thrive. These recommendations provide a framework for Britain to navigate the complexities of the current geopolitical environment, securing a lasting peace that is based on justice, mutual respect, and the recognition of Israel's legitimacy and security.

2nd April 2025

[15] United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Res 242 (22 November 1967) UN Doc S/RES/242.

[20] Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), "Dayton Peace Agreement," accessed April 2, 2025, https://www.osce.org/bih/126173.