News
Peers express ‘deep concern’ that UK losing position as trusted actor in peace process
Cross-party group intervenes in debate over British stance on West Bank annexation
May 19, 2020 09:02
Cross-party group intervenes in debate over British stance on West Bank annexation
May 19, 2020 09:02A cross-party group of peers – including Lord Polak and Baroness Deech – have written to Foreign Office Minister James Cleverly expressing "deep concern" that the UK is on the brink of losing its position as a trusted, impartial actor in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The group of peers – which also included Lord Leigh of Hurley, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Lord Turnberg - were responding to a letter sent by the Chair of the House of Lords International Relations Committee Baroness Anelay of St Johns which asked to Mr Cleverly for “reassurance” that the UK’s position remains against any “unilateral Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories”.
Pointing out the UK’s long-time role as a "trusted partner of both Israel and the Palestinian leadership" the peers suggest the letter from the Baroness fails to recognise that “despite the stated willingness to negotiate on the part of the Israeli government”, the Palestinian Authority had rejected President Trump’s so-called Peace Plan proposal “out of hand”.
The letter went on: “The US administration’s proposal is not a fait accompli agreement and there remains an opportunity for both parties to negotiate on the basis of the plan."
Outlining a succession of rejections by the Palestinians of peace proposals going back to Camp David in 1999, the peers write, “Can you advise on what steps Her Majesty’s government has taken to encourage the Palestinian Authority to return to direct negotiations with Israel?"
A similar question is against asked about the government’s efforts during the 2017 Paris initiative.
They write: "At no point during the Paris Initiative did the process secure the formal participation of both the governments of Israel and the Palestinian territories; receive high-level support from Her Majesty’s government, or lead to meaningful direct negotiations."
Meanwhile in relation to the “discussions around the extension of Israeli sovereignty into parts of the West Bank" the peers note that "Israel has made no formal announcement of its intentions nor communicated what such an extension would include" and therefore any intervention by the UK would be "premature at this time."
In response to suggestions that Israel could face economic sanctions in response to annexations, the peers add: “Any penalising, unilateral UK policy change would represent a reckless reversal of long-held neutrality on the peace process, as evidenced by the UK’s continued reluctance to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of either state or to recognise Palestinian sovereignty outside a negotiated final status agreement.
"Such a dramatic and one-sided policy change would be an irreversible blow to the UK’s traditional status as a constructive actor in the peace process."
The Peers end their letter to Mr Cleverly stating: "We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you at your earliest convenience to further discuss enhancing the UK’s long-established role as a trusted partner to both Israel and the Palestinians as well as its role as a meaningful partner for peace."
